"Oh, you're not actually happy. You've been indoctrinated to think you need to obtain an artificial mental state labeled 'happiness' by others. What you are really experiencing is resentment for others success and you are projecting your mediocrity as positive achievements."
I found Inside Out wildly entertaining. As did my children and parents. Pixar's storytelling and record of engaging multiple generations is unmatched. They are altogether tragic, dramatic, funny, personal, and universal.
I find nothing wrong with simplifying the rules of a film's universe and requiring filmgoers to suspend disbelief in order to tell a story. Why? Because good films are a catalyst for discussion. As a result, whereas the author is critical of the film itself as damaging for being simplistic, rather, it can be the very context to launch the necessary discussions with children to navigate their myriad of emotions.
Ironically, Pixar's very own Anton Ego of Ratatouille critiques the critics... "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."
I agree -- I think this piece actually tells you more about the reviewer's idea of what life is ("the way we form social relationships: through performances and masks that one tries on, as much for oneself as for others"), including a certain enjoyment of casual cruelty, than what the movie is about.
The essayist seemed to want a very different film. He wanted one that challenged its audience more directly with the childhood id (as he put it, presenting the audience with the "Big Fuck You"), and that had a more complex and unexplainable range of emotions on the part of both the kid and the adults. In this way, the OP claims, the film spent its time in the shallow end of the pool. (I have to agree.)
But, it was a kids movie. As an adult, I can view it as not risking much, but my 9-year-old was very anxious in several parts of the movie. It was a real emotional ride for her. On its own terms, the movie succeeded very well.
Malick's "The Tree of Life" (mentioned several times in the OP) also succeeded, but also was a flawed film, especially so for a non-believer like me. My wife cannot abide pretense and was giggling through the big bang/dinosaur sequence of TTOL.
TTOL and Inside Out are odd movies to put next to each other; one being so determinedly beautiful and almost too personal and idiosyncratic, and the other trying to enact universal emotional states for children.
He makes some great points, if he thinks he's talking to philosophical 10 year olds --but ten year olds don't care about philosophy and deep meaning, in a film, of all things.
He better not send his kids over to grandma or grandpa, cuz I'll bet they do even more sugar coating and infantilizing than this movie.
Relax, mr movie critic, take a breath. No, wait, you get paid to be critical and a cynic.
Pixar kind of had a chip on their shoulder during that era, they seemed especially mad at Hollywood and the critics. There's a dig at the end of Ratatouille pointed at Happy Feet, which won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature over Cars:
Inside Out was inspired by the psychological concept of basic emotions, which boil down to joy, sadness, fear, anger, disgust, and surprise. They just conflated fear and surprise into one character.
What I think is interesting is that these emotional characters have different aspects and complexities of their own. Pay close attention to the scenes where we see Riley's parents' emotions. For her mom, Sadness is in control; for her dad, Anger is the leader. Yet they are not predominantly sad or angry people. In the movie universe, Sadness is responsible for compassion and Anger for our sense of right and wrong. If Riley's emotions seem underdeveloped in regard to these complexities, it's because... well, she's a kid.
I haven't seen the movie, but what the article says resonated with the vibes I got from the trailers, so...
> The wonder of childhood is the opposite of the cozy vision of “Inside Out”
That may be a key quote. Kids movies, and Pixar movies (which often are, or used to be, for adults as much as for kids) don't need to contain simplistic world views; they need simple and layered presentation, but the world may be rich, and the characters and situations be driven by nuanced and sophisticated themes under the colourful hood. Toy Story 2, The Incredibles and Frozen, in my opinion, are shining examples.
I got the same feeling; I'm not sure what movie the reviewer thought he was going into, but it feels like he was expecting a David Lynch film or something similar, not a simple kid's movie.
I wouldn't say he expected any different; I think he just loathes the fact that these "kid's movies" are, as you called them, simple, or better yet, simplistic.
He thinks the movie does a disservice to kids by presenting what is, in his opinion, a distorted and sugar-coated representation of mental life and motivations.
Essentially, he thinks that a good movie would pass to viewers what Malick's Tree of Life does about the inner life of children (feelings of wonder, the need to act out for its own sake, the deception ones does for others and even oneself, etc) in a way that would appeal to kids.
(By the way, this is just what I understood from the review; I haven't seen Inside Out)
I think it's especially important to analyze kids' movies because of their significant ideological impact. You cant ell effective kids; stories without dumbing things down. I found it a very interesting analysis.
You can't tell effective kids' stories without dumbing things down.
Isn't that exactly what he disagrees with, though? I think he's looking for a director that can tell a kids' story, and show the shape of the inner mind, without having to dumb things down.
It's a tall order - he says it would require a director of genius - but I think his point is that if a director needs to dumb things down to make a film for kids, (s)he's better off not doing it at all.
I think understanding when a movie is just for fun is part of a film critics job.
In Australia we used to have Margaret and David before they recently retired. They were really good film critics with tastes that covered a large spectrum of movies.
On the other hand, there's "Man Getting Hit By Football"[1]. One can find a film too simplistic to be appreciated even if one takes it as "just for fun".
As people whose work is very subjective, critics don't lend themselves to be read in an ad-hoc fashion, in my opinion. One should follow their reviews, compare them with the works one has also watched/read, and only then decide which critics are more appropriate for you.
"The very notion of what’s appropriate for children looms over any consideration of a movie intended for children."
This is the author's justification for why he's critiquing the film. I disagree, personally, because he himself is not a child. I doubt any child would enjoy "The Tree of Life".
I don't think the author expects children to enjoy The Tree of Life; I think he just believes it's possible (if difficult) to write a film for children without losing its subtlety.
Before I clicked on the comments, I had a suspicion that this article wouldn't resonate with the HN crowd. It's very much an example of "humanities" thinking.
Can't speak for 'Jimmy, but here's my interpretation of what he's saying:
The HN crowd typically comes from a very analytical, scientific background. This line of thinking is based on deriving ideas and concepts from one another based on first order logic, empirical evidence, and reproducible experiments. This is a great way to build accurate models of the world, and allows us to build cars, satellites, computers, grow food crops efficiently, and a myriad other wonderful things.
By contrast, humanities thinking is about accepting that things can be approached and analyzed from multiple angles, using a variety of ideas, frameworks, and concepts that might be at odds with one another but all still give us valuable insights into whatever it is we're studying. This is a great way to approach things like art, human emotions, raising children, and a myriad other wonderful things.
Each approach has its place, and being able to use either in daily life is probably a good skill to have. If an algorithm is incorrect, you fix it - trying to argue that an incorrect algorithm holds as much value as a correct one probably isn't going to get you anywhere. On the other hand, there isn't such a thing as a mathematical function to clearly define what love or a beautiful piece of art is - trying to define such a function probably isn't going to get you anywhere.
To tie it back within the context of the original post: the vast majority of critics loved the new Pixar movie, and it seems to be a wonderful movie in the cultural context of 2015. But humanities thinking tells us that there is value in taking the movie apart and criticizing it in the way that the article's author is doing. Not because he's reaching an objective, unique, true conclusion - but because there's inherent value in that process, and in taking a stance opposed to the mainstream consensus. It might give one new ways to think about analyzing movies, or put words on some slight discomfort one had while watching the movie even if one enjoyed it, or heighten one's enjoyment of the movie, or any number of other things.
Excellent. It's just like what Donald Knuth said, "Don't believe something is good just because it's trendy. I'd probably go the other extreme way. If I find too many people adopting a certain idea, I'd probably think its wrong." Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c
I've always find those questions that are generally regarded as stupid party amusing. Because I think those questions showing the difference in out thought process, and instead of stigmatizing it there are valuable lessons to be learned here.
This charming film is appealing and enjoyable to all ages while gently reminding us to attend to our emotions -- just as the main character learns that sadness has its place.
All dramatic performances are simplifications, from scenery to the focus of the content. Usefully simple that is; like any map for instance, which would be unwieldy (at best) if at full scale and containing every detail. Clarity is found by stripping out superfluous details.
To my ear, the author of the article had to really stretch to find a way to complain about this flick.
The author sounds like a pretentious douche. The author has obviously never made or written a feature length film designed to entertain an audience. I bet the author spends Saturday mornings watching Wim Wenders films lamenting why Tom Waits doesn't release a new album already.
Blah.
Pixar writing once again hits it out of the park, creating a unique film that helps kids (and adults) think about how emotions affect us. Self-important gluten-free PBR drinkers notwithstanding.
It does feature satirical articles and columns, including the Borowitz Report, of which that Scalia article is one installment. (One of its most famous regulars was James Thurber, creator of Walter Mitty and a rare kind of humorist, still widely read decades after his death.) But it is not a satirical magazine cover-to-cover. It's particularly well-known for its short fiction and criticism.
"Hi, Richard."
"Hello, how are things?"
"Great! I'm pretty happy that..."
"Oh, you're not actually happy. You've been indoctrinated to think you need to obtain an artificial mental state labeled 'happiness' by others. What you are really experiencing is resentment for others success and you are projecting your mediocrity as positive achievements."
I found Inside Out wildly entertaining. As did my children and parents. Pixar's storytelling and record of engaging multiple generations is unmatched. They are altogether tragic, dramatic, funny, personal, and universal.
I find nothing wrong with simplifying the rules of a film's universe and requiring filmgoers to suspend disbelief in order to tell a story. Why? Because good films are a catalyst for discussion. As a result, whereas the author is critical of the film itself as damaging for being simplistic, rather, it can be the very context to launch the necessary discussions with children to navigate their myriad of emotions.
Ironically, Pixar's very own Anton Ego of Ratatouille critiques the critics... "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."